Ron Paul, does he stand a chance?

[Ancalagon]

Originally Posted by Khorum

Just a few pages ago you were singing the praises of Paul's Libertarian inclinations.

What is it about what I'm saying that is so confusing? I realize I'm no Churchill, but I don't think what I'm saying is befuddling. All I have been doing is disputing an assertion, made by Gahid, that the purpose -- the SOLE purpose -- of Paul's campaign is to garner publicity for the Libertarian Party. This is a specious and deleterious accusation. That is all I have been trying to show.

Why are you backing away from his Libertarian ties now?

I am backing away from nothing. I have praised Ron Paul's libertarianism -- his belief in the philosophy of liberty. I have never praised -- nor have I slighted him for -- his erstwhile attachment to the Libertarian Party. It is an irrelevancy, neither good nor ill.

I think it's worthwhile that Ron Paul becomes the voice of the Libertarian agenda, if only to bring their platform into mainstream consciousness for this generation. Don't you?

I think my problem is that I take for granted what I am familiar with, having run in libertarian circles for many years. The Libertarian Party comprises only a fraction of the libertarian movement. Again, it may seem like semantics, but it is crucial: note the capital L as contrasted with the lower case l. I think the best thing that will come from Ron Paul's campaign if he does not secure the Republican nomination -- and I harbor no illusions about how unlikely his acquisition of that is -- is to spread the message of liberty (libertarianism). If he makes no more progress on that front from here on out, he will still have done an absolutely breathtaking job. But again, the crucial thing, as far as this ridiculous argument goes, is that he is spreading the message of liberty, not shilling for the Libertarian Party, which is not even close to representative of the entirety of the libertarian polity.

Wait, do you think whether or not he's seen as a Libertarian will have a significant impact on his performance in the GOP primaries?

I will assume you mean what you typed: Libertarian -- as in, a member of the Libertarian Party. If that is what you mean, then yes, that would certainly affect him. It would not stop his devotees from supporting him, but it would certainly close off a segment of the voting population that is Republican through and through. They will not consider voting for someone they perceive to be a wolf in sheep's clothing.

Republicans are ideologically savvy, and they know what they want to see in their candidates: sincerity, consistency and experience and Paul has more of those three than any other candidate. I don't think he'll win the primary, far from it, but I don't think his libertarian convictions could bear any blame for his loss.

I agree wholeheartedly. Him being seen as a small-l libertarian -- as a lover of liberty, a champion of the constitution -- will, on the whole, make him attractive to many (though not even close to all) Republicans. It's just the issue of his ties to the Libertarian Party itself that Gahid has foolishly and incorrectly made reference to.

[darksensei]

Ron Paul's changing the campaign for the better imo. A couple months ago they were laughing at him saying get rid of the IRS. Now Chuck Norris says Mike Huckabee wants to get rid of it too. Pretty interesting, I like that it's going to be discussed now.

[Vatoreus]

Yea I noticed Mike trying to jump on the Internet bandwagon w/ having that retarded Chuck shit, but I guess he doesn't realize that it is making fun of Chuck Norris, not praising him. That and it's annoying as fuck.

[qLir]

If you're a libertarian, a constitutionalist, opposed to the war, opposed to the current system of taxation, tired of the government's fiscal irresponsibility, or simply tired of the corruption of modern day politicians, you no longer have an excuse to feel disenfranchised and apathetic towards modern politics. Now is the time to get involved and do something. Ron Paul has by far the most momentum of any candidate and his polling numbers keep going up, and will continue to do so as long as we keep getting his name and his stances out there.

Here are a list of things in order of priority you can do to help:

1) Register republican and vote in your state's primary. Your vote actually counts a lot more in the primary since the voting pool is much smaller. This is the most important thing you can do, as this is what all the money being spent, all the publicity is intended to accomplish. Even if you manage to track down a "supervoter" (someone that has voted in the last 3 consecutive primaries) and convinced them for sure to vote for Paul, there's still less than a 90% turnout for that group. EVERYONE needs to be doing this. Most states still allow for you to change your party, and in a lot of them you don't even need to, since they're open to everyone. http://www.ronpaulnation.com/register/ and/or GOP.com | Republican National Committee :: Home. Registering is really quite easy.

2) Increase his real world exposure. Posting a message like this on the internet is easy, but the internet is already quite saturated with Paul*. It can't hurt, and I do encourage you to post something like this (shit, or exactly this, w/e) anywhere you think might be somehow sheltered from Ron's message or lacking in frequent exposure, but the difficult task of expanding beyond the computer takes priority.

A) Try to tell at least 1 person a week that has similar views to Paul and probably hasn't heard about him as much as they should have about the good Dr. and what he stands for. If you know someone personally they'll be much more open to what you have to say, and this is the best way the foundation of support will be expanded. This will increase his name recognition since they'll surely mention him at least in passing occassionally if they support him, increase the odds of anyone that person knows of being educated about him, increase his cash (not everyone will donate but if you convert a few at least one of them will), and really just help expand the campaign beyond the internet.

B) Join a meetup group. There almost certainly is one in your area, check Meetup: World's largest community of local Meetups, clubs and groups!. It might seem weird showing up to talk to a bunch of strangers at first, but it is definitely worth it and helps the organizational and motivational aspects of things a ton. Your meetup probably has a list of supervoters in your area to really maximize the impact you can make in the primary (and if not I encourage you to get them to contact the official campaign about it), and this is where you can really make an impact in the primary results.

3) Donate. Money is the best way to reach all demographics but the Amish. The message doesn't translate as well to 30 second TV spots, but he needs to really get his name out there to the soccer moms and nascar dads.

A) www.teaparty07.com is coming up this December 16th. Try to get the word out to any Paul supporters that may not have heard about it, especially ones that don't use the internet as much and would've been less likely to see.

At this point anything less than $5,000,000 will be considered a failure now that the media has gotten wind of this. The actual money will be a little late for the first primaries, but If it's very successful he'll have the money to spend for Super Tuesday and the event itself will generate about as much instant free publicity as spending all of it will.

We're already pretty close if the non-pledged donors to pledged donors ratio is about the same as November 5th, which isn't too unlikely considering the real world name recognition and media promotion has skyrocketed largely due to the success of the first event. Donors that have heard about it but never visited the website should be higher, and donors that haven't pledged or have unpledged to avoid the spam the site sends should remain about the same (myself included, although if you don't have an alternate source of Ron Paul news it is a good way to stay informed).

If the pledges graph at ronpaulgraphs.com for Dec 16 keeps the same growth and the non-pledged donor ratio remains the same, we're probably looking at $6-7 million on the 16th, which is good, but $10 million would be a much better looking number and get a ton of free attention.

B) If for some reason there's anyone here that really wants to spend on Paul's campaign but doesn't have the time to really follow what's happening with it, pledge to www.ronpaulblimp.com. Frankly it's not the most efficient use of cash, but if you're at your $2300 donation limit and want to spend more, there's no reason not to. If you're under that I'd strongly suggest donating to the campaign rather than to this project.

4) Become more deeply involved with the grassroots campaign. Really much more has been done for this campaign by people just like you and me than the official staff. As support grows we can keep doing larger and larger things, and it's exciting to be a part of. Most of the brainstorming/discussion goes on at Grassroots Support of Ron Paul's 2008 Presidential Campaign, and I'd suggest visiting if you have any questions about Paul's campaign issues or want to learn more about him, too.

note: this has not been proof read at all, I'm running late because I spent too much time writing this as is. I had been meaning to write it for a while now, but I've just been so damn busy. Try to make it so I didn't waste my time, huh =p

oh and a general list of links for people that don't know:

grassroots HQ: Grassroots Support of Ron Paul's 2008 Presidential Campaign
Ron Paul 2008 Revolution - Ron Paul Nation - ronpaulnation.com - ronpaul2008.com | “because saving the country should be fun” - RON PAUL FOR PRESIDENT 2008 - FreeMe.TV

official: Ron Paul 2008 — Hope for America

data: RonPaulGraphs.com - Q4 Donation Statistics & Stuff

oh and something I should've touched on but forgot and am now out of time: Zaphod for President - » Ron Paul: CALL TO ACTION

* no real life campaigning has been harmed by this public service announcement

[BrotherWu]

Thanks for the info qLir.

Ron Paul is the candidate I have hoped we would see for a long long time. I always have a vaguely sick feeling when I vote that I am choosing the lesser of evils. I despise or at least mistrust most government organizations and I have always been in favor of less government and less spending.

My only concern about Paul is whether he is too much of an isolationist; I think you can go too far in the other direction.

I also don't understand why he says he will not run as an independent; He is running in a party that looks at him as an outcast. Why refuse to continue the challenge if he does not get the nomination?

Is there any evidence that he will have any success in the primary? Seems to me that there would be very little correlation between general popularity of this type of dark horse candidate and whether he stands a chance with party voters.

[Aulirophile]

Originally Posted by BrotherWu

Thanks for the info qLir.

Ron Paul is the candidate I have hoped we would see for a long long time. I always have a vaguely sick feeling when I vote that I am choosing the lesser of evils. I despise or at least mistrust most government organizations and I have always been in favor of less government and less spending.

My only concern about Paul is whether he is too much of an isolationist; I think you can go too far in the other direction.

I also don't understand why he says he will not run as an independent; He is running in a party that looks at him as an outcast. Why refuse to continue the challenge if he does not get the nomination?

Is there any evidence that he will have any success in the primary? Seems to me that there would be very little correlation between general popularity of this type of dark horse candidate and whether he stands a chance with party voters.

He isn't an isolationist, he simply doesn't believe in American Imperialism. Friends, not allies or conquered countries. If America were friends with everyone we'd be in a much better place right now, as our allies don't like us.

He ran as a Libertarian once. You have no idea how difficult it is do that, much less an Indepedant. It'd be a waste of money because the chances of even getting him on the ballot in each state are fairly nil. There are literally less 50 people alive with any expertise in organizing a movement to get a candidate on a ballot in all 50 states, and all of them are busy atm.

[BrotherWu]

Ross Perot seemed to make a good go at it.

[Aulirophile]

Originally Posted by BrotherWu

Ross Perot seemed to make a good go at it.

Perot hired some of those people, or get them to volunteer (including my Mother, who was single handedly responsible for getting the Libertarian party permanently on the state ballot in California). But right now they are all busy.

Granted with a grass roots movement like Paul has he COULD do it, but I don't think he will.

[BrotherWu]

I guess all I am saying is that I am not so sure that his chances are not any better in the GOP than they are somewhere else, mainly because he's not exactly in the good ol' boy network with some of his ideas. If people have given him the money to make him president, it's probably not because they are in love with the GOP; why not spend every last dime trying?

If he is enjoying so much success at a grass roots level, it seems feasible to me. He is a much more legit independent than Perot was.

[Ancalagon]

My only concern about Paul is whether he is too much of an isolationist; I think you can go too far in the other direction.

But he's not an isolationist. An isolationist wants to build a moat around Fortress America. An isolationist rails against not only foreign military intervention, but foreign trade -- a la Patrick Buchanan. Ron Paul is a non-interventionist. He is against military intervention unless our national security is directly and immediately threatened, and is against foreign entanglements, such as giving foreign aid to Israel or Pakistan. But he is not against trade; on the contrary, he is the most strident proponent of free trade you will find in Congress. He is not against diplomacy or travel.

Interestingly, China, who VERY seldom bestirs itself to go abroad and deal with some problem, is never accused of being isolationist. In fact, the accusation most commonly hurled at China is that she is being provocative and overly militaristic, by virtue of the fact that her defense expenditures have increased. If the United States retrenched, as Ron Paul advises, we might still, realistically, spend several times more than what China spends on defense. That we would then be called isolationist is truly perplexing.

[BrotherWu]

Okay, so, I thought I remembered from my middle school Social Studies, that Isolationists was the correct term, but it seems Non-Interventionist is more correct.

So, the question I ask myself about Ron Paul is how would he have reacted to the stuff that was going on in Germany in the 1930s? Maybe a more-fair question would be what would he do about a very similar set of circumstances today, e.g. a modern-day Hitler (Hitler at least in terms of military aggression), given what we know now.

I have heard him rail against preemptive strikes but I think that they might be justified at times.

[darksensei]

Originally Posted by BrotherWu

Okay, so, I thought I remembered from my middle school Social Studies, that Isolationists was the correct term, but it seems Non-Interventionist is more correct.

So, the question I ask myself about Ron Paul is how would he have reacted to the stuff that was going on in Germany in the 1930s? Maybe a more-fair question would be what would he do about a very similar set of circumstances today, e.g. a modern-day Hitler (Hitler at least in terms of military aggression), given what we know now.

I have heard him rail against preemptive strikes but I think that they might be justified at times.

But your example itself isn't a preemptive strike. Japan bombed the US, and then Germany declared war on us.

[BrotherWu]

Yes, that's my point.

Should we have to wait on Pearl Harbor before we wade into a situation? Paul is very critical of the idea of the U.S. using a doctrine of a justifiable preemptive strike but I think it is definitely justifiable.

Public support aside, how much easier would it have been to finish WWII had we declared war prior to actually being attacked? It was clear much earlier than 41 that we were going to be drawn in. Wasn't a draft instituted 6 or 7 years earlier? For one thing, it would have been nice to start out with a Pacific fleet.

It is honestly the only thing I have heard Paul say that concerns me. Virtually every other word he utters makes me want to have his child.

EDIT: So, for example, if we elect Paul and dismiss Chavez and Ahmadinejads of the world as lunatics and decide to keep our noses out of it, have we set a course that will result in a repeat of history? Have we failed morally to support the liberty of our fellow human beings? I'm not sure what the answer is, but it is my one reservation.

[qLir]

It's really a moot point since nuclear proliferation kind of erases the whole idea of a modern day WW2 that ends with anyone alive. However, if somehow technology reverted and a country decided they wanted to start expanding their nation by invading their neighbors without any reason, it would clearly be a threat to the stability of the world and thus us, and we would go to war through the legal means instead of these undeclared wars we never win.

Paul isn't completely anti-war, he supported going after Al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden (who?! Oh yeah the guy that killed 3000 Americans on American soil that we decided to ignore in favor of one of the unconstitutional undeclared wars that inevitably go terribly for us) and didn't support abandoning that for Iraq (or anything else about Iraq).

As for whether he can do well, he's polling at 8% with likely primary voters in New Hampshire, which is the most important early state, and at no less than 5% in most others. He really has only barely started advertising at the time these latest polls were conducted, though. November 5th brought free publicity, but only with those that really keep up with the news, not the mainstream. The money is actually just starting to be spent, so his mainstream advertising is going to triple or quadruple in the next month and a half before the primary. Considering that he won a blind poll in terms of values that republicans agree with, once his message gets out there more his numbers should start to increase.

Furthermore, his grassroots support is so devoted and organized that his supporters should have a higher turnout % than the polls expect, and the low voting younger demographics should have a higher turnout than expected (not by an earthshattering margin or anything, but there are certainly more younger people involved in this that will be motivated to turn out than usual). More importantly, if he's expected to get 10% and ends up getting 15-20%, it will be seen as a HUGE win for him. It's better for momentum and having a shot to win to go from 10% to 15% in an early primary than going from 30% to 25%. I fully expect him to be able to win 20% in NH, which is a quite good number considering all the candidates out there.

[qLir]

I realize people always say they expect the young voters to get out and support them and they never do, but I'm not talking about a mass movement. Most of these polls have the 18-35 demo at like 9% of their polling pool, and this demo favors Ron Paul over any other candidate in most polls. The thing is a lot of this demo is actually very active in meetup groups and what not, and the difference is that the ones trying to be self motivated will still have that abysmally low turnout rate, but the ones motivated by peer pressure, if nothing else, from these groups they've been attending will be much more lilely to actually show.

I'm not guessing every person in the low voting demo is going to show up and vote for Paul, but I'm guessing it will be closer to 15-20% the voting group (not a massive shift, considering the actual % of voting population in that demo) and most of the extra ones that do show up will already be attached to the Paul campaign.

Oh and head of NH repub party and Zogby say Ron will finish top 3 in NH. That alone would be huge for him because it'd really dig him out of being defined as a fringe candidate to the mainstream. Once he seems like an acceptable candidate people will be a lot more willing to think about him seriously. Momentum is all we need.

Also, he polls at 27% with independent NH voters leaning Republican (independents equal the number of dems or repubs, but I think like 60% of them are democratic, but that still means he's probably closer to 13-14% even right now) and they are allowed to participate in the Republican primaries if they show up and declare their party on site.